batmanlaghing567 wrote:Has anyone else seen a new post from Horseman. He just made that man bat topic and added 31 posts to it and poof he was gone. He had a intresting topic I hope he makes more. Its like he disappeared.

He just joined to make that Man-Bat topic, he didn't really care about other topics. I still think that he was joking about Man-Bat being in Arkham City, but I might be wrong.

batmanlaghing567 wrote:Has anyone else seen a new post from Horseman. He just made that man bat topic and added 31 posts to it and poof he was gone. He had a intresting topic I hope he makes more. Its like he disappeared.

He just joined to make that Man-Bat topic, he didn't really care about other topics. I still think that he was joking about Man-Bat being in Arkham City, but I might be wrong.

I recently got lambasted for posting about the DC Direct AC figures in the existing thread, another member told me I should've created a new thread and to stop resurrecting old threads (the previous post was about 3 weeks before), and that I was being lazy by not starting a new thread. RR posted saying I shouldn't create a new thread for an existing topic, then two more people mistakenly thought I was arguing with RR, which makes no sense since I was following his instructions and forum etiquette by using the existing thread.

I honestly wonder about some members reading comprehension levels. It's fine if you're not good at it, but don't blatantly call others wrong or incorrect when clearly it's you who's in the wrong.

Another example is the AC "When does it take place" thread, discussing when AC is supposed to be set since the plaque reads Nov 19, 1xxx (with the last 3 numbers unreadable). Most assume it should be sometime in the late 1990s, but others brought up the fact the advanced technology like flatsscreen TVs and small iPhone like devices didn't exist in the 90s so that can't be correct. This was countered that the tech of the Arkhamverse is about ten years more advanced than our world, allowing such tech to exist in the late 1990s and still have the plaques numbering make sense.

Literally 3-4 people responded this couldn't be the case cuz of the advanced tech AFTER that explanation and the plaque evidence was brought up, indicating they either didn't read the previous posts (it was a 2 page thread, so no reason not to read the previous responses) or somehow thought their version of the exact same question half a dozen other people brought up before them was more valid somehow? Jesus, people, let's try a little tact, logic, and common sense.